Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 406 U.S. 311 - United States v. Biswell

United States v. Biswell’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

1,820
cited by 1,820 later decisions
80
cited 80 times by the Supreme Court
40
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

570 federal appellate · 144 district · 580 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,820 later decisions (80 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), Delaware v. Prouse (1979)

570 federal appellate · 144 district · 580 state decisions — followed in 40 states

6350197219801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

reviewedUnited States v. Biswell (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Boyd v. United States · Bumper v. North Carolina · See v. City of Seattle · Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States

Cited together with Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States · See v. City of Seattle · Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · Donovan v. Dewey

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,820 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When a dealer chooses to engage in this pervasively regulated business and to accept a federal license, he does so with the knowledge that his business records, firearms, and ammunition will be subject to effective inspection.”
    77 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the context of a regulatory inspection system of business premises that is carefully limited in time, place, and scope, the legality of the search depends not on consent but on the authority of a valid statute.”
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, and licensed collector shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition, of firearms and ammunition at such place, for such period, and in such form as the Secretary [of the Treasury] may by regulations prescribe. Such importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors shall make such records available for inspection at all reasonable times, and shall submit to the Secretary such reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof as he shall by regulations prescribe. The Secretary may enter during busi ness hours the premises (including places of storage) of any firearms or ammunition importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector for the purpose of inspecting or examining (1) any records or documents required to be kept by such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector under the provisions of this chapter or regulations issued under this chapter, and (2) any firearms or ammunition kept or stored by such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector at such premises. Upon the request of any State or any political subdivision thereof, the Secretary may make available to such State or any political subdivision thereof, any information which he may obtain by reason of the provisions of this chapter with respect to the identification of persons within such State or political subdivision, who have purchased or received firearms or ammunitio”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.